Blueberry plant denominated &#39;Osorno&#39;

ABSTRACT

‘Osorno’ is a new blueberry cultivar of primarily  Vaccinium corymbosum . The rest of its parentage is from  V. darrowii  (13.3%),  V. angustifolium  (3.8%),  V tenellum  (&lt;1%), and  V. ashei  (&lt;1%). It is a highly productive cultivar with exceptional fresh fruit quality. It is likely best adapted to the northern highbush production areas where winters are not severe, such as central Chile and the Pacific Northwest, but it is recommended for further trial in colder production regions such as Michigan. Plants of ‘Osorno’ are vigorous and upright, although the canes can be lax when loaded with fruit. Canes are numerous, moderately branched and the fruit are well exposed. Its berries are large, have small, dry picking scars, light blue color, and excellent firmness and flavor. Its fruit held up extremely well in the unseasonably hot summer of 2012, when temperatures routinely exceeded 30 C.

LATIN NAME AND VARIETY DENOMINATION

The present disclosure relates to a new and distinct variety ofVaccinium corymbosum, which is hereby denominated ‘Osorno.’

SUMMARY

The present disclosure relates to a new and distinct variety of highbushblueberry plant, denominated ‘Osorno.’ ‘Osorno’ is primarily Vacciniumcorymbosum with 13.3% of its genes coming from V. darrowii, 3.8% from V.angustifolium, and <1% from V. tenellum and V ashei. It is a highlyproductive cultivar with exceptional fresh fruit quality. It is likelybest adapted to the northern highbush production areas where winters arenot severe, such as central Chile and the Pacific Northwest, but may besuitable for colder production regions such as Michigan. Plants of‘Osorno’ are vigorous and upright, although the canes can be lax whenloaded with fruit. Canes are numerous, moderately branched and the fruitare well exposed. Its berries are large, have small, dry picking scars,light blue color, and excellent firmness and flavor. Its fruit holds upextremely well, including in hot summers such as the unseasonably hotsummer of 2012 in Michigan and Oregon, when temperatures routinelyexceeded 30° C.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present variety will become more fully understood from the detaileddescription and the accompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1 is a photographic print in full color of a first perspective of a‘Osorno’ blueberry bush, wherein the bush is in the foreground and theadditional plants or portions thereof in the background and the grass onthe ground are not part of the ‘Osorno’ blueberry blush;

FIG. 2 is a photographic print in full color of a second perspective ofa ‘Osorno’ blueberry bush, wherein the bush is in the foreground and theadditional plants or portions thereof in the background and the grass onthe ground are not part of the ‘Osorno’ blueberry blush;

FIG. 3 is a photographic print in full color illustrating a first‘Osorno’ branch with exemplary fruit clusters, wherein the fruit shownare mature;

FIG. 4 is a photographic print in full color illustrating a second‘Osorno’ branch with exemplary fruit clusters; wherein most, but notall, of the fruit shown are mature; and

FIG. 5 is a photographic print in full color illustrating an ‘Osorno’branch with exemplary leaves.

DETAILED BOTANICAL DESCRIPTION

The following is a detailed botanical description of the new anddistinct variety of blueberry denominated ‘Osorno,’ its flowers, fruit,and foliage.

‘Osorno’ is primarily Vaccinium corymbosum with 13.3% of its genescoming from V darrowii, 3.8% from V. angustifolium, and <1% from Vtenellum and V. ashei. Emasculated flowers of ‘Draper,’ the male parent(i.e., the seed parent), were pollinated in 2002 with pollen from‘Legacy,’ the female parent. The seeds were germinated, grown in agreenhouse for 1 year and then field planted at the Southwest MichiganResearch and Extension Center in Benton Harbor, Mich. ‘Osorno’ was firstselected from a group of 103 siblings in 2006. FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 showexemplary ‘Calypso’ bushes, FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show ‘Calypso’ brancheswith exemplary fruit clusters, and FIG. 5 shows exemplary leaves from a‘Calypso’ bush.

The original selection of ‘Osorno’ was evaluated at the SouthwestMichigan Research and Extension Center (SWMREC) at Benton Harbor, Mich.from 2003-2007. Softwood cuttings were also set in advanced trials atGrand Junction, Mich. (MBG Marketing), South Haven, Mich. (DeGrandchampNursery), Silverton, Oreg. (Oregon Blueberry Company), Lowell, Oreg.(Fall Creek Nursery) and Osorno, Chile (Hortifrut). Two year old plantswere set at 4×10 foot spacing in 2008 in Michigan, and in 2009 in Oregonand Chile. As discussed further below, the plantings in Michigan wereevaluated for three years, and those in Oregon and Chile for two years.

‘Osorno’ may be propagated by hardwood cuttings in a greenhouse and thenplanted in the field. Initiation of root development from hardwoodcuttings may take about four to six weeks.

Initiation of root development from microshoots takes about three tofour weeks. Such methods are discussed in the following references,incorporated by reference herein: Doran, W. L. and Bailey, J. S.“Propagation of the high bush blueberry by softwood cuttings,” BulletinMassachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station; no. 410. Amherst, Mass.Massachusetts State College, 1943; Doehlert, C. A. “Propagatingblueberries from hardwood cuttings,” Circular (New Jersey AgriculturalExperiment Station) 490. New Brunswick, N.J. New Jersey AgriculturalExperiment Station, 1945; Doehlert, C. A. “Propagating blueberries fromhardwood cuttings,” Circular (New Jersey Agricultural ExperimentStation) 551. New Brunswick, N.J.: New Jersey Agricultural ExperimentStation, 1953; Zimmerman, R. H. 1991. Micropropagation of temperate zonefruit and nut crops. In: Debergh, P. C. and Zimmerman, R. H. (eds.)Micropropagation: Technology and application. Kluwer, Dordreckt; ElShiekh, A.; Wildung, D. K.; Luby, J. J.; Sargent, K. L.; Read, P. E.“Long term effects of propagation by tissue culture or softwood singlenode cuttings on growth habit, yield, and berry weight of ‘Northblue’blueberry,” Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science.1996, 121: 2, 339 342; Galletta, G. J.; Ballington, J. R.; Daubeny, H.A.; Brennan, R. M.; Reisch, B. J.; Pratt, C.; Ferguson, A. R.; Seal, A.G.; McNeilage, M. A.; Fraser, L. G.; Harvey, C. F.; Beatson, R. A.;Hancock, J. F.; Scott, D. H.; Lawrence, F. J.; Janick, J. (ed.); Moore,J. N. “Fruit breeding. Volume II. Vine and small fruits,” Department ofHorticulture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. 1996 John Wileyand Sons; New York; USA; Strik, B.; Brun, C.; Ahmedullah, M.; Antonelli,A.; Askham, L.; Barney, D.; Bristow, P.; Fisher, G.; Hart, J.; Havens,D. Draper A. D. and Chandler C. K. “Accelerating highbush blueberryselection evaluation by early propagation,” Journal of the AmericanSociety for Horticultural Science. 1986 111(2): 301-303; Pritts M. P.and Hancock J. F. (Eds.) “Highbush blueberry production guide,”Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, N.Y., USA1992.

The fruiting season of ‘Osorno’ significantly overlaps that of thewidely planted, mid-season cultivars ‘Draper,’ and ‘Bluecrop.’ ‘Osorno’has larger fruit than ‘Bluecrop,’ as well as much better overall fruitquality. It is a little larger than ‘Draper’ with comparable fruitquality, but a sweeter taste. It is a much more vigorous than ‘Draper’and likely more productive. ‘Osorno’ is meant as a very heat tolerantalternative to ‘Draper,’ where the vigor of ‘Draper’ may be an issue.

‘Osorno’ is likely not as winter hardy as ‘Bluecrop’ and ‘Draper.’ Itdisplayed consistent high yields in Michigan until 2011, when a sharptemperature reduction in early winter destroyed a high proportion of itsflower buds. At Grand Junction, Mich., ‘Osorno’ lost about 70% of itsflower buds, while ‘Bluecrop’ and ‘Draper’ lost about 40%. ‘Osorno’flower buds were little damaged in the winter of 2011/2012, but thiswinter was unseasonably mild. No winter damage has been noted on‘Osorno’ in Oregon or Chile.

‘Osorno’ is intended for all northern highbush production areas wherewinters are not severe, such as central Chile, Western Europe, and thePacific Northwest. It has high yields and vigor, as well as exceptionalfruit quality, i.e., very large, light blue, tiny scar, extremely firmand crisp, and excellent flavor that is balanced sweet. However,‘Osorno’ may have only modest winter hardiness and a bush habit that canbe difficult to mechanically harvest.

‘Osorno’ characteristics are set forth in Table 1, below. Taxonomiccharacteristics disclosed herein are standard in the practice (R. E.Gough, R. J. Hindle, and V. G. Shutak, “Identification of Ten HighbushBlueberry Cultivars using Morphological Characteristics,” HortScience 11(5): 512-4, 1976). Color descriptions, except those given in commonterms, are presented in Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chartdesignations. In cases where the color descriptions cited from The RoyalHorticultural Society Colour Chart differ from the colors shown in thedrawings, the colors cited from The Royal Horticultural Society ColourChart should be considered accurate. Any deviation from these colors inthe drawings is due to failure of the photographic process to exactlyduplicate the colors of nature. In addition, fruit color designations inTable 1 are applicable only to mature fruit.

TABLE 1 ‘Osorno’ characteristics Characteristic ‘Osorno’ Plant traitsMature height 1.4 m Mature width 1.1 m Height/width ratio 1.19 Growthhabit Bushy; upright Annual renewal canes 3 to 5 Internode length onspring shoots 1-2 cm (1.36 cm average) Mature cane color grayed-greenMature cane length 0.80-1.20 m (0.95 m average) Mature cane width1.0-1.5 m (1.4 m average) Bark texture smooth to moderately rough Vigorstrong Fall color on new shoots yellowish green (145B) One-year-oldshoot color green One-year-old-shoot: length of medium internodeFruiting type on one-year-old shoots only Time of vegetative bud burstmedium Time of beginning of flowering on medium one-year-old shoot Timeof beginning of fruit ripening on medium one-year-old shoot Foliage Leafshape elliptic Apex shape acute Base shape rounded Leaf length 4.2-5.0cm (4.7 cm average); medium Leaf width 2.5-3.1 cm (2.8 cm average);medium Leaf length/ width ratio 1.7; medium Leaf margin entire Leafnectaries absent Pubescence none Color upper surface green (137C)Intensity of green on upper surface medium Color lower surface green(138B) Petiole length 1.4 cm (1-2 cm average) Petiole color lightyellowish green (142C) Bud Bud shape ovate Bud width 2.0-4.0 mm (3.2 mmaverage) Bud length 5.0-7.0 mm (5.4 mm average) Color reddish brownFlower bud anthocyanin coloration medium Inflorescence length (excludingmedium peduncle) Blossoms Shape of corolla elongate-urceolate Size ofcorolla tube medium Anthocyanin coloration of corolla tube absent orvery weak Calyx 5 lobed Style length 10-11 mm at corolla tip to slightlylonger Color of open flower white Flower # per cluster 4-5 Pistil oneper flower Pistil color yellowish green (145A) Pistil length 10-11 mmFlower diameter 7-8 mm Flower length 10-11 mm Fragrance faint blueberryaroma Calyx diameter 6 mm Sepals fused, 5 lobes Length Width Color topyellowish green (146C) Color bottom yellowish green (146C) Unripe fruit:intensity of green color medium Reproductive organs Type berry Seed size1.75 mm Number of seeds 4-30 (9.1 average) Mature fruit Size largeHeight 1.5-1.6 cm (1.52 cm average) Width 1.7-2.2 cm (1.75 cm average)Shape in longitudinal direction round Diameter of calyx basin mediumDepth of calyx basin medium Color with bloom violet blue (98B) Colorwithout bloom violet blue (103A) Color of skin after removal of bloomdark blue Intensity of bloom strong firmness very firm Pedicel scar size2-3 mm (2.2 mm average) Pedicel length 8-10 mm (9 mm average) Pedicelcolor yellowish green (144B) with red (60B) blush Peduncle length 9-10cm Peduncle color yellowish green (138A) Average weight 2.9 g Sepalsnone remaining on ripe fruit Cluster density medium Sweetness mediumAcidity medium

In multi-location trials, ‘Osorno’ has been a semi-spreading bush thatripens fruit in the early mid-season, as illustrated in Table 2, below.Specifically, development and fruit characteristics of ‘Osorno’ wereevaluated at two locations in Michigan, two in Oregon, and one in Chile.Two year old plants were set at 4×10 foot spacing in 2008 in Michigan,and 2009 in Oregon and Chile. Evaluations were made when the bushes were30-50% ripe. Its fruit have had excellent size, color, firmness andflavor. It also has had high vigor and excellent yields, except inMichigan in 2011 (after the severe winter).

TABLE 2 Development and Fruit Characteristics For bush habit: 1 =sprawling, 5 = bushy and 9 = upright. For season: 1 = very early, 4-5=mid-season and 9 = very late. For vigor and fruit characteristics: 1-4= inferior, 5-6 = acceptable, 7 = good, 8 = excellent and 9 = superior.Fruit characteristics Location Year Habit Season Vigor Yield Size ColorScar Firmness Flavor Michigan Grand 2010 7 4 7 7 8 7 9 8 8 Junction 20116 4 6 2 8 8 8 8 8 2012 7 4 5 7 9 9 8 8 7 South 2010 4 5 7 8 7 7 8 8 8Haven 2011 6 5 8 2 8 8 8 8 8 2012 7 4 8 9 7 8 9 8 8 Mean 6.2 4.3 6.8 5.87.8 7.8 8.3 8.0 7.8 Oregon Lowell 2010 6 5 — 6 8 8 8 8 7 2011 4 4 9 9 78 8 9 7 Silverton 2010 5 4 — 7 9 6 9 7 7 2011 4 4 7 7 8 7 8 8 8 Mean 4.84.3 8.0 7.3 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.0 7.3 Chile Osorno 2010 4 5 7 7 6 6 7 8 7 20116 4 8 7 8 9 8 9 9 Mean 5.0 4.5 7.5 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.0 Grand Mean5.3 4.4 7.4 6.7 7.6 7.5 8.0 8.2 7.7

In comparative Michigan trials, ‘Osorno’ has ripened at about the sametime as ‘Draper’ and ‘Bluecrop,’ as illustrated in Table 3, below.Specifically, mean fruit rating and ranges of ‘Osorno,’ Draper,' and‘Bluecrop’ were evaluated at Grand Junction and South Haven, Mich. in2010, 2011, and 2012. Two year old plants were set in 2008. Fruitevaluations were made when the bushes were 50% ripe. ‘Osorno’ has beensuperior to ‘Bluecrop’ in all measured characteristics. The fruit of‘Osorno’ have been larger and better flavored than ‘Draper’ with acomparable scar, although the fruit of ‘Osorno’ have been a littledarker.

TABLE 3 Mean Fruit Rating and Ranges The rating scale is 1-9, with 1-4 =inferior, 5-6 = acceptable, 7 = good, 8 = excellent, and 9 = superior.Ranges are in parentheses. Date Date Plant Picking Fruit Cultivar Fullbloom 50% ripe vigor¹ Weight Color scar Firmness Flavor load² ‘Osorno’5/9 7/1 7.5 7.8 7.8 8.3 8.0 7.8 5.6 (4/26-5/16) (6/29-7/3) (5-8) (7-9)(7-8) (8-9) (all 8s) (7-9) (2-8) ‘Draper’ 5/11 7/3 6.5 7.6 7.6 8.6 8.87.2 6.5 (4/23-5/20) (6/27-7/7) (6-7) (7-9) (7-9) (8-9) (8-9) (7-8) (5-9)‘Blue- 5/11 7/5 6.9 6.5 7.5 7.2 7.3 6.5 7.2 crop’ (4/23-5/20)(6/29-7/21) (6-7) (6-7) (7-8) (7-8) (7-8) (5-7) (5-9) ¹A block of‘Osorno’ at Grand Junction is at the edge of the field and is doingpoorly (rating of 5). Osorno at all other locations is very vigorous(ratings 7-9). ²A sharp temperature reduction in the winter of 2011damaged a high proportion of the flower buds of most cultivars. ‘Osorno’lost about 70%, while young plants of ‘Bluecrop’ and ‘Draper’ lost about40%. ‘Osorno,’ ‘Draper,’ and ‘Bluecrop’ had comparable winter damage inthe other years.

As illustrated in Table 4, below, the fruit weight of ‘Osorno’ has beenlarger than the standard cultivars in most comparisons in Michigan,except it was smaller than ‘Legacy’ in Chile. Specifically, averagefruit physical and biochemical characteristics of ‘Osorno’ were comparedto standard cultivars in Osorno, Chile (2012) and Grand Junction, Mich.,(2011 and 2012). Five-fruit samples were evaluated when the bushes were30-50% ripe. Soluble solids in the fruit of ‘Osorno’ have beencomparable to all the standard cultivars except ‘Liberty’ and itstitratable acidity has been among the lowest of any cultivar. Its fruithave also been very firm, comparable to ‘Draper’ and ‘Liberty’ inMichigan and superior to ‘Liberty’ in Chile.

TABLE 4 Average Fruit Characteristics Weight Soluble Titratable FirmnessFirmness Cultivar Location Year (g) solids acidity SS/TA (g/mm) (N)‘Osorno’ Michigan 2011 2.9 12.5 0.81 15.4 — — 2012 1.9 13.0 0.53 24.2332 — Chile 2012 1.9 15.9 0.66 24.0 — 51.7 ‘Draper’ Michigan 2011 2.112.7 0.89 14.3 — — 2012 1.7 11.9 1.05 12.1 334 — ‘Bluecrop’ Michigan2011 1.6 11.1 0.80 13.9 — — 2012 1.6 11.8 0.67 17.6 202 — ‘Legacy’Michigan 2011 2.0 12.1 0.73 16.6 — — 2012 2.1 13.3 0.52 25.6 301 — Chile2012 2.2 13.8 0.40 34.5 — 37.6 ‘Liberty’ Michigan 2011 1.8 15.4 0.8518.2 — 2012 1.7 15.8 0.53 29.8 322 Chile 2012 2.4 14.8 0.70 21.1 43.1‘Jersey’ Michigan 2011 1.4 13.2 0.51 25.9 — — 2012 1.2 13.8 0.63 21.9202 —

As illustrated in Table 5, the fruit of ‘Calypso’ have a larger size,smaller picking scar, and are more firm than the fruit of ‘Bluecrop.’Relative to the vigor of ‘Draper,’ the vigor of ‘Calypso’ is high.

TABLE 5 Expression Characteristics expression of the expression of thecharacteristic in the characteristic in Cultivar characteristic cultivar‘Calypso’ ‘Bluecrop’ fruit size medium to large very large ‘Bluecrop’picking scar medium to small very small ‘Bluecrop’ firmness medium tofirm very firm ‘Draper’ plant vigor low to medium medium to high

What is claimed is:
 1. A new and distinct highbush blueberry plant,substantially as illustrated and described herein.